Bangladesh research publications journal

Data analysis: Data were sta tistic ally analyzed using the (ANOVA) “Ana lysis of Variance” technique with the help of the computer package MSTAT. The mean difference s were adjusted by the Dunc an’s Multip le Range Te st (DMRT) (Gomez and Gomez, 1984).
http ://w ww .bdresearchpublicatio ns.c o m/jo uma l/
Results and Discussions
This episode is the presentation and discussion of the results obtained from the experiments carried out to study the performance of ginger powder under different treatments. The data are presented in tables and the summary of a nalysis of variance of all the parameter.
Proximate composition of fresh ginger and ginger powder: The fre sh ginger and ginger powders were analyzed for moisture, ash, protein, fat, p^H, acidity, minerals and fiber, etc .
Table 1. Composition of fre sh ginger and ginger powder

Composition	Fresh ginger	Ginger powder (%)
		Sun dried	Oven dried	Sun and oven dried
Moisture (%)	79.5	5.72	4.35	4.0
Ash (%)	1.0	4.0	4.0	4.03
Protein (%)	2.12	7.1	6.8	7.3
Fat (%)	2.50	1.98	1.75	1.81
Fib er (%)	2.4	1.58	1.34	1.59
P^H	6.3	5.2	5.0	5.0
Acidity (%)	2.1	1.32	1.32	1.32
Mine ra ls Ca	0.019	0.088	0.061	0.068
(%) P	0.032	0.047	0.032	0.040
Fe	0.013	0.025	0.018	0.023

It was determined the chemical composition of ginger powder and compared with the chemical composition of fresh ginger. The composition of ginger may vary due to varietal differenc e , variations in stage of maturity, time elapsed between harvesting and analysis and the growing conditions of the ginger. Moisture content of fresh ginger was 79.5%. Keramat Ali et al., (2001) also reported that in Bangladesh, moisture c ontent of fre sh ginger was 80.9%., which was almost similar to this investigation. In case of ash content of fre sh ginger was 1.0%, while the ash content of ginger powder was 4.0%. Keramat Ali et al., (2002) reported that the ash content of Bangladeshi fre sh ginger was 1.2%. Pruthi (2001) reported that the ash content of dried ginger was 5.0%. So the ash content of dried ginger was higher than fre sh ginger.However, protein content of fre sh ginger was 2.12%, whereas protein content of ginger powder were 7.1% (sun dried), 6.8% (oven dried), 7.3%(sun and oven dried) .Ali et al., (2002) reported that protein content in fresh ginger of Bangladeshi was 2.3%. Pruthi (2006) reported that the protein content of dried ginger was 8.1%. This is slightly lower than that found in this investigation. The fat content of fre sh ginger and dried ginger were 2.50% and 1.98 % ( sun dried), 1.75 % ( oven dried), 1.81 % (sun and oven dried) respectively. There was a decreasing trend to the fat content of ginger powder. This might happened due to oxidation.
Sensory evaluation of ginger powder stored in polythene bags and plastic containers: The samples of ginger powder were subjected to sensory evaluation testing using 1-9 hedonic scale. The mean scores of color, flavor, texture and overall acceptability of different samples are presented in following table.



Table 2. Mean sensory score for color, flavor, te xture and overall acceptability of various ginger powders

Samples code		Sensory		attributes
		Color	Flavor	Te xture	Overall acceptability
111	I	8.00 a	8.267 ^a	8.400 a	8.267 ^a
111	II	7.93 ^a	7.667 ^b	7.933 b	7.933 ^a
222	I	7.13^bc	6.933 ^c	7.467 ^c	7.200 ^b
222	II	7.00 ^c	6.933 ^c	7.067 ^c	7.200 ^b
333	I	7.33^bc	7.000 ^c	7.267 ^c	7.200 ^b
333	II	7.60ab	7.000 c	7.400 c	7.333 ^b

111. I. = Sun dried and packaged in polythene bag; 111. II. =Sun dried and packaged in plastic container; 222. I. = Oven dried and packaged in polythene bag; 222. II. =Oven dried and packaged in plastic container; 333. I. =Sun and Oven dried and packaged in polythene bag; 333. II. =Sun and Oven dried and packaged in plastic container.
A sing le way a na lysis of variance (ANOVA) was c arried out for color preferenc e and re sults revealed that the re were signific ant differences in c olor acceptability. It has been revealed by DMRTtest that the treatments of the ginger powder with different methods and packaging sig nific a ntly affected the degree of color acceptability of the ginger powder. The highest color score (8.0 out of 9.0) was achieved with the sample sun dried and packaged in polythene bag containing sample code 111. I. while the lowest score (7.0 out of 9.0) was found sample oven dried and packaged in plastic c ontainer containing sample code 222.II.
In case of flavor preference among the ginger powder samples of single way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the samples were significantly affected in flavor acceptability. It has been revealed by DMRT test that the treatments of the ginger powder with different methods and packaging sig nific a ntly affected the degree of flavor acceptability of the ginger powder. The highest flavor score (8.267 out of 9.0) was achieved with the sample sun dried and packaged in polythene bag containing sample code 111. I. while the lowest score (6.933 out of 9.0) was found sample oven dried and packaged in plastic container containing sample c ode 222.I and II.
In case of te xture preference among the ginger powder samples of single way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the samples were significantly affected in flavor acceptability. It has been revealed by DMRT test that the treatments of the ginger powder with different methods and packaging sig nific a ntly affected the degree of te xture acceptability of the ginger powder. The highest texture score (8.4 out of 9.0) was achieved with the sample sun dried and packaged in polythene bag containing sample code 111. I. while the lowest score (7.067 out of 9.0) was found sample oven dried and packaged in plastic container containing sample code 222.II.
In case of overall acceptability preference among the ginger powder samples of single way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the samples were signific a ntly affected in overall ac c eptability. It has been revealed by DMRT test that the treatments of the ginger powder with different methods and packaging significantly affected the degree of overall acceptability of the ginger powder. The highest overall acceptability score (8.267 out of 9.0) was achieved with the sample sun dried and packaged in polythene bag containing sample

code 111. I. while the lowest score (7.002 out of 9.0) was fo und sample oven dried and pac kaged in plastic c ontainer c ontaining sample c o de 222. (I& II) and the sun dried and oven dried and pac kaged in polythene bag, c o nta ining sample code 333.I.
The effects of packaging materials and storage time on ginger powder: The moisture c ontent of different ginger powders was determined d uring pac kaging and at inte rva ls of 60 days. The moisture c ontent of ginger powders pac kaged in plastic containers and polythene bags is showed in following table .
Table 3. Samples stored in plastic c ontainers
Samples Moisture content (%)

Powder	1^st test during	2nd test	3^rd test after 4	4^th test after 6 months
	packaging	after 2	months
		months	(sometimes	Sometimes Capped
		(sometimes	opened)	opened
		opened)

Sun dried	5.72	7.5	9.3			11.5	7.0
Oven dried	4.35	5.6	6.8			9.7	6.4
Sun and oven dried	4.0	5.1	6.3			9.4	6.2
Table 4. Sample	s stored in polythe	ne bags
Samples